Media Release: Issue date: 14 November 2018
*Second public hearing on the Encryption Bill*
The second public hearing on the Telecommunication and Other Legislation
Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 will be held on *Friday, 16
November 2018* in Sydney. The Committee will hear from academics, statutory
oversight agencies, and industry peak bodies.
Details of the public hearing:
*9:00 am – 3.15pmSMC Conference & Function Centre, 66 Goulburn St, Sydney
(Carrington Room)*
The hearing will be live streamed (audio only) at www.aph.gov.au/live.
The full program of the hearing is available at
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018/Public_Hearings
Additional hearings will be held in *Canberra on 27 and 30 November*.
Further information on the inquiry can be obtained from the Committee’s
website.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 11:36, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Communications Alliance submission
> <https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=789049aa-edfc-48e2-a79c-0dd1c28f95b8&subId=662644> makes
> the point both s313 and s280 (1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act 1997
> are current extensively used to access metadata.
>> It follows that under the new bill, about a dozen LEAs will similarly be
> able to rely on s313 and s280(1)(b) to get warrantless metadata access.
>> Kind regards
>> Paul Wilkins
>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 13:09, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> Coexistence with Data Retention Regime (Under Telecommunications Act)
>>>>>> Passage of this Bill will set the stage for mass surveillance, where
>> carriers are already subject to data retention, but the Minister may
>> further declare any service provider subject to the metadata regime.
>>>>>> 187A Service providers must keep certain information and documents
>>>> (3A) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, declare a service to be
>> a service to which this Part applies.
>>>>>> Such declaration has a statutory limitation of 40 sitting days of
>> Parliament, however nothing in the Act prevents such a declaration being
>> rolled over by the Minister, maintaining a metadata regime in perpetuity
>> for any service they should designate. All this would lie within the
>> provisioned scope of the Minister's powers without any further legislation.
>>>> Access to such metadata does not necessarily require a warrant. Access
>> under the Telecommunications Act can be rendered by the service provider as
>> voluntary assistance.
>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 11:50, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Rob,
>>> Check your inbox/spam folder 29/10.
>>>>>> Kind regards
>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 08:33, Robert Hudson <hudrob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Odd. I signed up to track the enquiry, but have had no notifications
>>>> at all that additional hearings had been scheduled.
>>>>>>>> There's an another additional day according to the committee website -
>>>> 27th November.
>>>>>>>> Where did you see if information that they're asking for supplementary
>>>> submissions?
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 12:28, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *UN's Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy* has weighed in on
>>>>> the PJCIS review with incandescent criticism:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8012483f-e421-41a7-8bd4-1e8eb5eb39eb&subId=661745>>>>>>>>>> In my considered view, the Assistance and Access Bill is an example of
>>>>> a poorly conceived national security measure that is equally as likely to
>>>>> endanger security as not; it is technologically questionnable if it can
>>>>> achieve its aims and avoid introducing vulnerabilities to the cybersecurity
>>>>> of all devices irrespective of whether they are mobiles, tablets, watches,
>>>>> cars, etc., and it unduly undermines human rights including the right to
>>>>> privacy. It is out of step with international rulings raising the related
>>>>> issue of how the Australian Government would enforce this law on
>>>>> transnational technology companies.
>>>>>>>>>> I can't but think that if the Minister for Home Affairs to be doing
>>>>> well to attract the ire of the United Nations and his timing couldn't be
>>>>> better, just as the Government has lost control of the House. I'm hopeful
>>>>> the Australian media will pick up on the interest of the UN in the Bill,
>>>>> fingers crossed.
>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, the PJCIS, after announcing two additional hearings 16/30
>>>>> Nov, are also asking for *supplementary submissions, to be received
>>>>> no later than 26 November.*
>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 13:07, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> We're at a critical juncture where the Minister for Home Affairs may
>>>>>> get his way and steam roll this Bill through Parliament (how this could
>>>>>> play out in both Houses would be interesting, as they'll need either Labor
>>>>>> or one of the independents in the Lower House). Or the Bill gets
>>>>>> substantially modified or sent back to the Dep't Home Affairs to start over.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's of deep concern is that the Minister represents to the House
>>>>>> consultation has been extensive, and that modifications of the Bill
>>>>>> represent a consensus view. Yet industry has been vocal in opposition to
>>>>>> the Bill, and have criticised the level of consultation and the
>>>>>> Government's preparedness to receive advice:
>>>>>>>>>>>> While DIGI appreciates the challenges facing law enforcement, we
>>>>>> continue to have concerns with the Bill, which, contrary to its stated
>>>>>> objective, we believe may undermine public safety by making it easier for
>>>>>> bad actors to commit crimes against individuals, organisations or
>>>>>> communities. We also remain concerned at the lack of independent oversight
>>>>>> of Notices and the absence of checks and balances with this legislation,
>>>>>> which we discuss in more detail in this submission.
>>>>>> Submission to PJCIS - DIGI (includes Google, Amazon, Facebook...)(78)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We urge the government to seriously consider the comments submitted
>>>>>> by industry and civil society and consider changes that would protect the
>>>>>> security and privacy of Apple’s users and all Australians.
>>>>>> Submission to PJCIS - Apple (53)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given the complexity of the Bill, the sensitivity of the subject
>>>>>> matter, and the limited consultation period, the summary above is not an
>>>>>> exhaustive list of BSA's concerns and recommendations in respect of the
>>>>>> Bill. There are other aspects of the Bill that require further
>>>>>> consideration in order to find the right balance between the legitimate
>>>>>> rights, needs, and responsibilities of the Australian Government, citizens,
>>>>>> providers of critical infrastructure, third party stewards of data, and
>>>>>> innovators.
>>>>>>>>>>>> As such, we respectfully encourage the Australian Government to
>>>>>> engage in further dialogue with industry to consider the broader issues at
>>>>>> play and the implications (and possible unintended consequences of the
>>>>>> Bill).
>>>>>> Submission to PJCIS - BSA (Cisco, IBM et al.)(48)
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:48, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm determined the Minister for Home Affairs doesn't get to drop a
>>>>>>> deeply flawed Bill on a supine and compliant Parliament, and have taken
>>>>>>> measures, to whit, written 22 MPs in positions where they can influence
>>>>>>> policy, and provided links to submissions which point out the Bill as
>>>>>>> proposed is neither proportionate nor necessary:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Law Council of Australia:
>>>>>>>https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=859d9cda-0f99-4bef-994f-edc6006c87bf&subId=661321>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joint Councils for Civil Liberties:
>>>>>>>https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6a26c1ce-15f3-4229-9b45-dd4ad7cfb8f2&subId=661197>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australian Human Rights Commission:
>>>>>>>https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a7b9ff25-7c09-41e9-b97a-56dae1ac0e94&subId=661055>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PJCHR,starts @ p24:
>>>>>>>https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:20, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *New PJCIS Public Hearings*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *16 Nov 2018:* Sydney, NSW
>>>>>>>> *30 Nov 2018:* Canberra, ACT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 13:23, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone yet had the opportunity to think through the use of
>>>>>>>>> force provisions? Does use of force extend beyond physical forced entry, to
>>>>>>>>> say, hacking?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 18:03, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>>paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compare:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHAIR: So the big companies like Facebook, Amazon, Twitter,
>>>>>>>>>> over-the-top messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp?
>>>>>>>>>> Mr Hansford: A range of different industry companies.
>>>>>>>>>> CHAIR: *A good percentage of those?*
>>>>>>>>>> Mr Hansford: *A reasonable percentage, I'd say.*
>>>>>>>>>> (Public) FRIDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2018
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The government has consulted *extensively* with industry and
>>>>>>>>>> the public on these measuresand has made amendments to reflect the feedback
>>>>>>>>>> in the legislation now before the parliament."
>>>>>>>>>> Minister for Home Affairs - Speech to Parliament 20 Sept 2018
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 16:01, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>>>paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIGI's submission (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Oath, and Twitter)
>>>>>>>>>>> has just appeared:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=d48c3c35-221d-4544-a7d7-109a82c72dc1&subId=661549>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On August 14, 2018, the Government released for Public Exposure
>>>>>>>>>>> a draft of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment
>>>>>>>>>>> (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 (the “Bill”) together with an Exposure
>>>>>>>>>>> Document, to which DIGI made a submission (attached). A revised Bill was
>>>>>>>>>>> introduced to Parliament ten days following the close of submissions, with
>>>>>>>>>>> only minor amendments that fail to address its potential impacts on public
>>>>>>>>>>> safety, cybersecurity, privacy and human rights, raising concern among
>>>>>>>>>>> industry, consumer and civil society groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>>>>paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The PJCHR express extensive concerns with the bill.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following demonstrates a posture where they will likely
>>>>>>>>>>>> oppose the bill without further safeguards:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.109 Another relevant factor in assessing whether a measure is
>>>>>>>>>>>> proportionate is whether there is the possibility of oversight and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> availability of review. The power to give a technical assistance notice or
>>>>>>>>>>>> request, or technical capability notice, is not exercised by a judge, nor
>>>>>>>>>>>> does a judge supervise its application. Section 317ZFA provides a
>>>>>>>>>>>> discretionary power to a court, in relation to proceedings before it, to
>>>>>>>>>>>> make such orders as the court considers appropriate in relation to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosure, protection, storage, handling or destruction of technical
>>>>>>>>>>>> assistance information, if the court is satisfied that it is in the public
>>>>>>>>>>>> interest. The bill does not otherwise provide for court involvement in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> process of giving a technical assistance notice or request, or technical
>>>>>>>>>>>> capability notice. The bill additionally seeks to amend the Administrative
>>>>>>>>>>>> Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) to exclude decisions under
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 15 of the Telecommunications Act (which would include a decision to
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue a technical assistance notice or request, or technical capability
>>>>>>>>>>>> notice) from judicial review under the ADJR Act. 47 In these circumstances,
>>>>>>>>>>>> further information from the minister as the adequacy of the safeguards in
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of oversight and review would assist in determining the
>>>>>>>>>>>> proportionality of the measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 15:12, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>>>>>paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21 October AEC had received 6890 postal votes out of 12,788
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issued. Today, received postal votes is 7,789. Sharma is trailing by 1,552.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm calling it a Phelps' win and we will have minority government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phelps will win by at least 500 votes so no recount.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 18:19, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transcript of public hearing 19th October:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2a1771c8-f314-43f2-b9b0-cd09ad8123ae%2F0000%22>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 16:46, Christian Heinrich <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:12 PM Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Except that where subject to an order under 317j to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceal the existence of a TCN/TAN forms part of the terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For PCI-DSS Requirement 4 Telstra [as an example I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have mandated that their customer is responsible for both the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure and software [as a service] within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.telstra.com.au/content/dam/tcom/personal/consumer-advice/pdf/business-a-full/cloud-h.pdf>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are therefore unable to assist with the implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TCN/TAN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christian Heinrich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://cmlh.id.au/contact>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>>>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>>>>>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog>>>>>>>>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20181115/b796dca6/attachment.html>